dr_hunt Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 It would be interesting if the new gen motor weighed as much as the old gen 1 did. My dart blocks weighed 205lb each, but it still runs 9's so I'm happy. I suppose every pound adds up eventually. The bathroom scales are apples to apples, though, whether accurate or not the difference is what is important. Doesn't seem to be much difference. Pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartman Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 I can say pretty confidently that most 1st gen SBC blocks, bare with main caps and bolts, weigh 163# +/- 1#. Anybody know what a bare LS1 block weighs? jt According to someone over at LS1tech.com they claim the LS1 block weight is 91 lbs. http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1825 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 30, 2006 Author Administrators Share Posted October 30, 2006 This thread prompts some questions. Let's assume for argument sake that the LS1 and L98 short blocks are similar in weight. Is the major advantage in the more modern EFI and head design? The LSx series engines and especially the LS7 have such a superbly flat powerband for the power they make. Could you get close with a L98 or LT1 with aluminum heads? Kurzahls, One thing I hope this thread does NOT turn into is a debate about which motor is superior. For what its worth, both Paul and I feel that the LSx series is better in almost every way... you'll get no debate from us. Glad you're back! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 30, 2006 Author Administrators Share Posted October 30, 2006 Well let's just let the thread roll on. I keep reading it and I keep reading that he's being sarcastic and saying that the two idiots in their garage with some bathroom scales are wrong and that GM wouldn't have spent billions of dollars in vain. Jon, Don't sweat it. We knew full well it would be controversial. People can believe what they want... my Rice Crispies will still be crispy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randy 77zt Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 a person would expect the all aluminum ls based motor to be a lot lighter.this myth is busted.if you use the same scale for comparing 2 objects back to back you get a number,it was really the difference of the weight between the 2 engines is what people are curious about.nothing wrong with the post-but if some body just spent money on a ls motor thier ego might be hurt.please keep random tidbits of info coming-it makes my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Guys the only way you're gonna prove this topic is to take two BLOCKS, minus ALL other hardware and weigh them. You can't pile a bunch of parts ontop of either motor and weigh them like that and consider it myth busting... Don't get me wrong guys, YOU'RE ON TO SOMETHING... Now follow thru with it. What I've read is that the LS1 block is supposed to be between 80-90# lighter than the traditional 1/2nd gen SBC block. All other components are supposed to be similar and the LS1 crank is actually supposed to pack a little more weight... That's what I've read in a number of publications... Mike:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 30, 2006 Author Administrators Share Posted October 30, 2006 You can't pile a bunch of parts ontop of either motor and weigh them like that and consider it myth busting... Don't get me wrong guys, YOU'RE ON TO SOMETHING... Now follow thru with it. Do the parts weigh more installed then they do on top? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators RTz Posted October 30, 2006 Author Administrators Share Posted October 30, 2006 Guy's, This was never intended to be precise. I kept hearing rumors of 75lbs, 60lbs, 90lbs, etc. I had reasons to believe otherwise. We did what we did to see if there was a SIGNIFICANT difference. We didn't find it in the short block. Yeah, there are a few small parts missing but not 50Lbs of them. Yes, the LS1 is lighter. *If* its 55 lbs lighter, it not in the shortblock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buZy Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Very interesting thread. I was wondering this for a while now. Guess my old 327 block is not so heavy after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustinOlson Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Whats interesting to me is if indeed the LT1 weighs within 5lbs of the ls1 shortblock, there is a huge difference between the LQ9 and the LT1. The LQ9 block is stated as weighing 183lbs, and the LS1 at 91lbs. I just found this link stating the following: LT1 block 107lbs If this is true then the difference in the blocks themselves are 16 lbs. I could imagine the beefier crank of the ls1 making up some of the difference between Ron Tylers measurements. http://www.ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=539196&highlight=ls2+block+weighs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buZy Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Ok so which weighs more? 1st gen sbc with alum heads, intake, waterpump, typical long tube headers, Holley 4 bbl carb? Or an LS2 with harness and computer etc needed to swap out? The reason I ask is old man thinks his 06 vette alum LS2 weighs considerbly less than my 327. EDIT: Question answered from the above respones. Sorry for posting before reading everything, me bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike C Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I think this method is MUCH more useful than just measuring the block weight. Who cares how much the block weighs? Total weight is the goal. If you were comparing traditional small block aluminum vs. iron, that would be relevent, but here this is more so IMO. Great post and keep it up! Personally, I thought LS2 Miata's post was not disrespectful and was poking fun at the billion dollar engineering programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If you're going to weigh complete packages, make sure you use similar components... same brand, same materials, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS2 V8 Miata Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 I found it interesting to see the exact same long term argument by thread going on here as I've seen in other forums, which engine weighs less. As if that difference was the deciding factor of superior performance alone, irregardless of HP and torque, car set-up or the driver. The majority converting V8 Miatas use Ford 5.0 V8s because there's a conversion kit available. About 5 of us have built LSX V8 Miatas and the Ford SB guys always argue that we (the LSX guys) have wasted our time and money based on their belief the SBF and accessories are lighter, as if it were true, that would matter far more than any engine's performance. The OEMs put out "discriptive" specs information on engine weights but never clarify just "what" it is they're weighing. This is the food for argument intiation amoungst enthusiasts, not empirical proof. Look at the testing methodology used to arrive at a gross conclusion; "a measly 4 Lbs". The pictures tell us a little. We observe a used SBC balancing on a stack of metal (aluminum tube, steel?) on two "different" bathroom scales (typically 300 Lb max reading capability, typically, complete engines can weigh between 350-550 Lbs) the attachment fixture for the one engine stand is still in place on the SBC, an aluminum water pump is piled on top instead of the OEM cast iron one. Is the SBC full of oil or not, how about the LS1? We don't see any pictures of how the LS1 was weighed, but it really doesn't matter because common sense tells us this is not empirical proof of anything. It leads us to believe a greasy used engine (carboned piston tops) can be balanced on two different bathroom scales. The only reliable weighing attempts I've ever seen posted before came from a "trusted", independent engine shop that employed four corner digital scales (for corner weighing cars) and they documented complete engines, with similar accessories, in place, wet (with oil & filter) Even though I have a life-time of building and racing cars with a variety of engines, there are folks that will say I'm biased because of my current project's engine choice, so I refrain from quoting my own thoughts as to approximate engine weight comparisons. My comments were not intended to offend anyone's sensibilities, however in the words of a famous Statesman; "you're intitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts". Sorry for the long post, but I thought I could help clarify my previous post. - Lee:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikelly Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Do the parts weigh more installed then they do on top? Ron, You know what I mean... I don't see the need for that comment... I personally want to know if there is a weight difference and I want to know which components weigh what. Also, YES it does matter, not only how precise the scale, but that both engines are places EXACTLY on the scale in the same manor and same location. It's very easy to use the wrong type of scale for weighing items like this and getting the wrong reading...People do it everyday weighing themselves. Ask a physician... If you want to bring information like this to light, I applaud it. But do it in a manor that will with 100% refute these kinds of comments from those who have raised doubt. Otherwise, it's just consumption of bandwidth. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 If you want to bring information like this to light, I applaud it. But do it in a manor that will with 100% refute these kinds of comments from those who have raised doubt. Otherwise, it's just consumption of bandwidth. Right on Mike. I could put both engines on an old time balance scale like the "scales of justice" type of thing and be totally comfortable with the one that sinks lower being the heavier one. Likewise I think the bathroom scales are a reasonably accurate way to measure the difference. Maybe you won't get the weight down to the ounce, but you can tell which is heavier. Maybe you need a $2000 set of scales Lee, but I sure don't. Speaking of which, why not show us what those guys came up with instead of alluding to it as "real" proof but not showing it. And questioning the weight of carbon and oil? How much do you think that oil weighs??? When you read this, did you think that Ron and Paul represented that they were figuring the weights of the engine down to the oz? I sure didn't. I think their information is not exact and was not ever purported to be. What it does tell me is that there isn't a whole heck of a lot of difference in the weight of the short blocks. That's all. Doesn't take into account the heads or manifolds or the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS2 V8 Miata Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Digital scales are $999.95 (Speedway Race Catalog) and isn't that exactly the point of this kind of discussion, to avoid exageration, who drives their car around with only a short block in it? I avoided quoting numbers myself based on exactly the kind of reactions I've been reading in this thread. - Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 who drives their car around with only a short block in it? Now THERE is a valid point. One which, coincidentally was conceeded by the guys doing the measuring. I'll refresh your memory: Granted, there are many other considerations... heads, alternators, flywheel/clutch package, exhuast manifolds, intake manifolds, etc, etc. But, in the end, the single largest component, and arguably the largest potential contributor, shows no significant weight savings. Obviously, this is not a scientific, lab grade test procedure we've concocted. The main goal was was to see if they were similar in weight... the answer appears to be yes. I avoided quoting numbers myself based on exactly the kind of reactions I've been reading in this thread. Good thinking. Tear someone else down by being a jerk, but provide no proof of your own ideas. Just post that you have proof, but we're all too stupid to believe it. See how appreciative we are of that strategy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LS2 V8 Miata Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 Adhering to your own rules, mister administrator, like#10. I haven't attacked anyone, nor called you a "Jerk" either. I guess if you're out of meaningful ideas & responses, next you should further abuse your administrator status and punish me for disagreeing with you and the shade-tree rationale. Here's info from GM Performance parts about 3 minutes ago, let 'er rip! I've only "seen" other people's weight comparison attempts is why I didn't claim that as definative information of my own, I didn't do it, that's the point in not quoting it. If bathroom scales are good enough for you, here are the GM published numbers (note the term "approximate" used by GM); LSX Series Turn Key Weights "We appreciate your e-mail regarding the weight of our engines. The approximate weight of our L-series GM Performance Parts engines, as ordered, you requested is as follows: LS1 = 558 lbs. (part number 25534322 - discontinued) LS2 = 550 lbs. (part number 19156261) LS6 = 544 lbs. (part number 17801268) LS7 = 528 lbs. (part number 19165058)" Thank you for your interest in our products. - GM Performance Parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted October 31, 2006 Share Posted October 31, 2006 What would make me happy is those numbers you were talking about. Without that, we're not going to make any progress at all. I'm comfortable with this rough comparison being a rough comparison. You've only said "No because I say so" and ridiculed the people who took the time to measure the weight of the shortblocks. That ridiculing IS an attack as far as I'm concerned. Give us SOMETHING other than your say so, or leave it to someone else to provide some ACTUAL PROOF of your point. I have no problem with you being right, I have a problem with the way you argue your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts